Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic
By Murray Waas, National Journal
Monday, July 3, 2006

President Bush told the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that he directed Vice President Dick Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that his administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to people familiar with the president's statement.

Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said.

But Bush told investigators that he was unaware that Cheney had directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, to covertly leak the classified information to the media instead of releasing it to the public after undergoing the formal governmental declassification processes.

Bush also said during his interview with prosecutors that he had never directed anyone to disclose the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. Bush said he had no information that Cheney had disclosed Plame's identity or directed anyone else to do so.

Libby has said that neither the president nor the vice president directed him or other administration officials to disclose Plame's CIA employment to the press. Cheney has also denied having any role in the disclosure.

On October 28, 2005, a federal grand jury indicted Libby on five felony counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice, for allegedly concealing his own role, and perhaps that of others, in outing Plame as a covert CIA officer.

One senior government official familiar with the discussions between Bush and Cheney -- but who does not have firsthand knowledge of Bush's interview with prosecutors -- said that Bush told the vice president to "Get it out," or "Let's get this out," regarding information that administration officials believed would rebut Wilson's allegations and would discredit him.

A person with direct knowledge of Bush's interview refused to confirm that Bush used those words, but said that the first official's account was generally consistent with what Bush had told Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Libby, in language strikingly similar to Bush's words, testified to the federal grand jury in the leak case that Cheney had told him to "get all the facts out" that would defend the administration and discredit Wilson. Portions of Libby's grand jury testimony were an exhibit in a recent court filing by Fitzgerald.

Dana Perino, a spokesperson for the White House, declined to comment. James E. Sharpe, an attorney for President Bush, did not return a phone message left at his home on Saturday. The special prosecutor's office also declined to comment.

The disclosure of classified information as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, and the unmasking of Plame as a CIA "operative" by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003, occurred after Wilson began asserting that the Bush administration had relied on faulty intelligence to bolster its case to go to war with Iraq.

Wilson had led a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger in March 2002 to investigate claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy enriched uranium from the African nation to build a nuclear weapon. Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were almost certainly not true. Still, President Bush cited the Niger allegations during his 2003 State of the Union address as evidence that Saddam had an aggressive program to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Wilson has said he sought out White House officials, believing they did not know all the facts, and was rebuffed, he began speaking to reporters about his Niger mission, although he initially asked journalists not to reveal his identity.

On June 12, 2003, the same day that news accounts appeared citing Wilson's allegations against the administration-albeit without him being named-Libby first learned from Cheney that Plame worked at the CIA and might have played a role in sending her husband to Niger. Libby's indictment stated: "On or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President learned this information from the CIA."

On July 6, 2003, Wilson himself went public in an op-ed piece in The New York Times and on NBC's "Meet the Press" with his claims that the Bush administration had misrepresented the Niger information to make the case for war.

Among those who took notice was Cheney.

Cheney cut Wilson's op-ed out of the newspaper and wrote in the margins: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb[assador] to answer a question. Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

In grand jury testimony, Libby testified that Cheney would "often... cut out from a newspaper an article using a little penknife he had" and "look at, think about it." Whether Libby saw Cheney's annotation of Wilson's column is not clear. Libby testified: "It's possible if it was sitting on his desk that, you know, my eye went across it."

That aside, court papers filed by Fitzgerald's office have asserted: "At some point after the publication of the July 6 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, [Libby's] immediate supervisor, expressed concerns to [Libby] regarding whether Mr. Wilson's trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife."

Two days after Wilson's column appeared, on July 8, 2003, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Libby questioned Wilson's mission to Niger by telling Miller that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, according to Miller's federal grand jury testimony, and the indictment of Libby. Libby has claimed that he and Miller never discussed Plame that day -- a claim that prosecutors assert is a lie.

Four days later, on July 12, 2003, Libby told Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper that Plame worked for the CIA and that she might have had a role in her husband's selection for the Niger mission. Libby also spoke to Miller again that day and discussed Plame's work at the CIA, according to Miller's grand jury testimony and the Libby indictment.

Central to the criminal charges against Libby is Libby's grand jury testimony and his statements to the FBI that when he talked to Cooper and Miller about Plame, he was only repeating rumors that he had heard from other journalists. Libby has testified that one or two days before talking to Miller and Cooper about Plame, NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA, and that other reporters had heard the same information.

According to Libby's indictment, Libby told the FBI that after Russert told him about Plame, Libby responded "that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. Libby was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, Libby did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President."

Contradicting Libby, Russert testified to the grand jury that he never spoke about Plame to Libby. Prosecutors alleged that Libby lied about Russert, and the Libby indictment states that he learned about Plame from Cheney and also from State Department and CIA officials with either direct or indirect access to classified information.

A central focus of Fitzgerald's investigation has been why Libby would devise a cover story on how he learned of Plame's CIA work when prosecutors had obtained Libby's own notes showing that Libby had first gotten the information from Cheney. Libby told the FBI and testified to the grand jury that he had forgotten what Cheney had told him by the time that he made the Plame disclosure to reporters.

"I no longer remembered it," Libby testified to the grand jury regarding his June 12 conversation with Cheney. It was only after speaking to Russert, Libby testified, that he "learned" the information about Plame's CIA employment "anew."

Federal investigators have concluded that Libby's account is implausible. They have also questioned Libby's testimony that he does not believe he discussed the matter again with Cheney until at least July 14, 2003, the date of Novak's column that called Plame an "agency operative."

Federal investigators have a substantial amount of evidence that Cheney and Libby spoke about the matter in detail shortly after Wilson's column appeared on July 6. Cheney's handwritten notes in the margin of the Wilson column are one reason that prosecutors have believed that the two men spoke earlier than Libby has said they did.

Why -- if the criminal charges against Libby are correct -- would Libby lie to the FBI and the grand jury that he was only circulating rumors he had heard from reporters?

One obvious reason, prosecutors have believed, is that Libby did not want to admit that he was disseminating material gleaned from classified information. Even if Libby believed that he was unlikely to be charged with disclosing classified information, the investigators think that Libby could have feared the loss of his security clearance or his job. Or, perhaps most important of all, he worried about embarrassing Cheney and Bush.

Sources say investigators believe it is possible that Libby was trying to obscure Cheney's role in the Plame leak -- either by the vice president directing Libby to leak her CIA status, or through a general instruction from Cheney encouraging Libby to get the word out about Plame's role in sending Wilson to Niger. They say it is also possible that Libby lied to conceal the fact that he leaked Plame's identity to the press without Cheney's approval.

Another important reason that Cheney and Libby may have spoken about Plame shortly after July 6, rather than July 12, is that Libby testified that he and Cheney talked on a regular basis after July 6 about how to counteract Wilson's allegations. During grand jury testimony, a prosecutor asked Libby whether this was "a topic that was discussed on a daily basis?" Libby replied: "Yes, sir." When the prosecutor followed up by saying, "And it was discussed on multiple occasions each day, in fact?" Libby again responded: "Yes, sir."

Asked why the matter was so important to Cheney, Libby replied: "He wanted to get all the facts out about what he had or hadn't done-what the facts were or were not. He was very keen on that and said it repeatedly: Let's get everything out."

Libby further testified that Cheney was not referring to going public with information about Plame, but rather making available other classified information that both men believed would rebut Wilson's charges and discredit him.

Cheney encouraged Libby to disclose portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, according to court records filed by Fitzgerald. One section of the report mentioned the Niger allegations as credible, and Cheney, Libby, and other senior administration officials wanted to demonstrate that the CIA's incorrect assessments were a reason why the administration was making its own claims about the Niger matter.

As National Journal first reported in April, Cheney directed Libby to leak portions of a highly classified March 2002 intelligence report on the CIA's Directorate of Operations debriefing of Wilson after he returned from Niger. Although the debriefing did not mention Plame, Cheney and Libby believed that portions of it would contradict Wilson's accounts.

During the same time that Cheney and Libby's effort to leak classified information to discredit Wilson was under way, other White House officials were working through a formal interagency declassification process to make public portions of one or both of the same documents. It is unclear why Cheney and Libby were apparently acting without the knowledge of other senior government officials who were working with Cheney and Libby to formally declassify much of the very same information.

Leading the effort to formally declassify some of the same information, according to legal and government sources, were presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, and then-CIA Director George Tenet.

A senior government official who has spoken to the president about the matter said that although Bush encouraged Cheney to get information out to rebut Wilson's charges, Bush was unaware that Cheney had directed Libby to leak classified information. The White House has pointed out that the president and vice president have broad executive powers to declassify whatever information they believe to be in the public interest. Meanwhile, court papers filed by Fitzgerald in April suggest that Libby was reluctant to leak any classified information to the press, and only did so after being assured that his actions were approved by both the president and vice president.

Regarding a meeting with Judith Miller that was scheduled for July 8, 2003, in which Cheney wanted Libby to leak her portions of the National Intelligence Estimate, Fitzgerald asserted in the court papers that Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose... [portions] of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion."

"[Libby] further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. [Libby] testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE."

And Libby "testified that he spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom [Libby] considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that presidential Authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of a document."

A senior government official familiar with the matter said that in directing Libby to leak the classified information to Miller and other reporters, Cheney said words to the effect of, "The president wants this out," or "The president wants this done."

the Talking Can

07-04-2006, 10:33 AM

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois......."I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

but what about the flag burning admendm.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

not telling the truth is not a lie (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/)

patteeu

07-04-2006, 11:07 AM

but what about the flag burning admendm.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

not telling the truth is not a lie (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/)

It's not a leak if it's an authorized disclosure. The more we hear about the Plame affair, the less it sounds like there was any wrongdoing and the more questionable the President's decision to allow a special prosecutor becomes. All that's left is a pardon for Libby and we'll be able to archive this file.

jAZ

07-04-2006, 11:11 AM

It's not a leak if it's an authorized disclosure. The more we hear about the Plame affair, the less it sounds like there was any wrongdoing ...
Since you weren't paying attention.
"Bush also said during his interview with prosecutors that he had never directed anyone to disclose the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. Bush said he had no information that Cheney had disclosed Plame's identity or directed anyone else to do so."

banyon

07-04-2006, 12:02 PM

It's not a leak if it's an authorized disclosure. The more we hear about the Plame affair, the less it sounds like there was any wrongdoing and the more questionable the President's decision to allow a special prosecutor becomes. All that's left is a pardon for Libby and we'll be able to archive this file.

You do realize that without wrongdoing, a pardon is not required.

go bowe

07-04-2006, 12:12 PM

a leak is a leak in the public's mind...

i don't think the legal defense of presidential declassification comes across to ordinary people...

what reverberates is the president's promise to root out the leak of plame's identity, with the word leak referring to a leak of information rather than a public release of information...

the information was leaked to reporters...

maybe not within the letter of the law, but a leak nonetheless...

i know i'm disappointed with the president's response to the non-leak that was authorized by him or cheney (take that mr. cheney is my lover!)...

he promised to root it out and punish those responsible...

legal leak or not, it was a leak of information that resulted in the outing of an active cia officer...

and all the president's people have done is come up with legal loopholes for his failure to follow through on his promise...

it's what is commonly referred to as getting off on a technicality...

go bowe

07-04-2006, 12:13 PM

You do realize that without wrongdoing, a pardon is not required.oh, but they're so nice to hang on the wall in your office...

all the fancy printing and seals and such...

Mr. Laz

07-04-2006, 12:24 PM

It's not a leak if it's an authorized disclosure. The more we hear about the Plame affair, the less it sounds like there was any wrongdoing and the more questionable the President's decision to allow a special prosecutor becomes. All that's left is a pardon for Libby and we'll be able to archive this file.

once again you are looking for a way out instead of actually thinking about that what Bush did was wrong.

the Talking Can

07-04-2006, 12:48 PM

a leak is a leak in the public's mind...

i don't think the legal defense of presidential declassification comes across to ordinary people...

what reverberates is the president's promise to root out the leak of plame's identity, with the word leak referring to a leak of information rather than a public release of information...

the information was leaked to reporters...

maybe not within the letter of the law, but a leak nonetheless...

i know i'm disappointed with the president's response to the non-leak that was authorized by him or cheney (take that mr. cheney is my lover!)...

he promised to root it out and punish those responsible...

legal leak or not, it was a leak of information that resulted in the outing of an active cia officer...

and all the president's people have done is come up with legal loopholes for his failure to follow through on his promise...

it's what is commonly referred to as getting off on a technicality...
It's commonly referred to as lying.

and keep in mind the context for ALL of this behavior....bogus claims about Iraq intel...they weren't trying to get the truth out to the public (that would be easy, simply show us the evidence)...they were trying to destroy the life of someone who "dared" to verify what other independant agencies had already discovered: that the Niger claim was bullshit...

Bush selectively declassified (in secret, telling no one) intel and had it leaked it to reporters via Cheney, Libby, and Rove(again, hiding their actions and motives) for the sole purpose of attacking someone who told the truth. And we know all of this becuase of the direct testimony of those involved.

He then claimed he knew nothing about it. It is the very definition of dishonesty. There is no such thing as a lie if you pretend this is an example of honesty.

And the only result is that a life long CIA operative....a covert operative working on nuclear proliferation, lost her job and career. She gave more to her country than Rove and Libby combined and multiplied by 1000. And Republicans cheer these assholes.

Bush, Cheney, Rove, Powell...the lies they told? Consequences? Accountability? Nah...republicans ain't into that. But how about that Micheal Moore guy....he's so un-American!!...etc...

go bowe

07-04-2006, 01:04 PM

don't forget clinton...

it's ok to do bad things because clinton lied about a blow job... :(

go bowe

07-04-2006, 01:05 PM

clinton lied,

the semen dried... :p :p :p

go bowe

07-04-2006, 01:11 PM

aw, c'mon...

lying is a little strong...

mistaken maby... (bad girl/cp spelling)

or confused over whether or not leaking plame's identity was really a leak or not (he seemed to shift from anyone who leaked to anyone who broke the law)...

if he declassified it, then it wasn't a leak and he knew there wasn't a leak, so why did he call it a leak?

didn't he know that he had declassified that information?

i agree that there are questions about the president's statments and directness (or lack thereof), but "lying" is a little strong, imo...

i'd go with confused... :p :p :p

patteeu

07-04-2006, 01:48 PM

once again you are looking for a way out instead of actually thinking about that what Bush did was wrong.

That's because I don't see anything wrong with what Bush or his people did (at least based on what we know so far). Maybe you are looking for something wrong instead of actually thinking about it yourself.

I agree with go bo's analysis about how most people see this, but I disagree that that's the standard by which it should be judged. If the President or the VP thought that on balance it was good for the country to disclose Ms. Plame's identity then I'm good with that decision even if they tried to do it covertly.

patteeu

07-04-2006, 01:51 PM

You do realize that without wrongdoing, a pardon is not required.

I meant "wrongdoing" in terms of the disclosure. I'm leaving out the possible wrongdoing related to the ill advised investigation. However, I'd point out that actual wrongdoing is not required for a conviction in the real world so it's possible for a pardon to be valuable even when no wrongdoing has occurred.

patteeu

07-04-2006, 01:58 PM

a leak is a leak in the public's mind...

i don't think the legal defense of presidential declassification comes across to ordinary people...

what reverberates is the president's promise to root out the leak of plame's identity, with the word leak referring to a leak of information rather than a public release of information...

the information was leaked to reporters...

maybe not within the letter of the law, but a leak nonetheless...

i know i'm disappointed with the president's response to the non-leak that was authorized by him or cheney (take that mr. cheney is my lover!)...

he promised to root it out and punish those responsible...

legal leak or not, it was a leak of information that resulted in the outing of an active cia officer...

and all the president's people have done is come up with legal loopholes for his failure to follow through on his promise...

it's what is commonly referred to as getting off on a technicality...

I agree with everything you say here, more or less. I don't think the distinction between an authorized disclosure and an unauthorized one is as hard to make as you seem to be suggesting, but the real mistakes here were making the "I'll fire the leaker" promise and setting up a special prosecutor in the first place. Whether it's a technicality or not, the President shouldn't fire anyone unless there was an unauthorized leak, IMO.

the Talking Can

07-04-2006, 02:28 PM

aw, c'mon...

lying is a little strong...

mistaken maby... (bad girl/cp spelling)

or confused over whether or not leaking plame's identity was really a leak or not (he seemed to shift from anyone who leaked to anyone who broke the law)...

if he declassified it, then it wasn't a leak and he knew there wasn't a leak, so why did he call it a leak?

didn't he know that he had declassified that information?

i agree that there are questions about the president's statments and directness (or lack thereof), but "lying" is a little strong, imo...

i'd go with confused... :p :p :p

you're still not adressing his motives for "confusing" the truth with a lie...he and Cheney and Rove knew the claims were bogus, they had been told...they weren't interested in being truthful about the claims, they were interested in punishing someone for daring to question them...they abused the power of their office for personal, political ends...in that sense it is exactly a reply of Nixon's shenanigans...without the outrage...now, people don't even pay attention

:deevee:

there really is no confusion about what happened, or why...actually, we've never had such a clear accounting of events DURING a President's tenure....only about the nation wide refusal to demand some - hell, any -accountability from the President...people still pretend he is honest, when in fact, no such presumption can be made based on the evidence...

John_Locke

07-04-2006, 02:50 PM

guess some people will never see the truth

and believe bush no matter what geesh

go bowe

07-04-2006, 03:06 PM

you're still not adressing his motives for "confusing" the truth with a lie...he and Cheney and Rove knew the claims were bogus, they had been told...they weren't interested in being truthful about the claims, they were interested in punishing someone for daring to question them...they abused the power of their office for personal, political ends...in that sense it is exactly a reply of Nixon's shenanigans...without the outrage...now, people don't even pay attention

:deevee:

there really is no confusion about what happened, or why...actually, we've never had such a clear accounting of events DURING a President's tenure....only about the nation wide refusal to demand some - hell, any -accountability from the President...people still pretend he is honest, when in fact, no such presumption can be made based on the evidence...what kind of accountability can there be, other than low poll numbers, really low poll numbers?

he's got more time left in office, the republicans control the house and senate and (allegedly) violating the law with regard to some of the anti-terror surveillance programs is not as serious as lying under oath about blow jobs...

i don't see how you can do anything, practically speaking, to hold anyone "accountable" under these circumstances...

Mr. Laz

07-05-2006, 11:28 AM

If the President or the VP thought that on balance it was good for the country to disclose Ms. Plame's identity then I'm good with that decision even if they tried to do it covertly.
That is sooooooooooooooo freaking wrong

it's ok to divulge an operative's situation for political expediency?!?!?!

i don't care which president, which party .... that's just complete crap.

Mr. Laz

07-05-2006, 11:32 AM

what kind of accountability can there be, other than low poll numbers, really low poll numbers?

he's got more time left in office, the republicans control the house and senate and (allegedly) violating the law with regard to some of the anti-terror surveillance programs is not as serious as lying under oath about blow jobs...

i don't see how you can do anything, practically speaking, to hold anyone "accountable" under these circumstances...
doesn't matter whether anything can be done or not

just because he has a corrupt house, corrupt congress and corrupt party backing him up.

it's still wrong

and i don't mean wrong on a "i just received a blow job from someone besides my wife" wrong .....

...... i mean contrary to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution wrong.

...... i mean "i have the power so i can do what i want" wrong.

...... i mean "president corrupted by power turned tyrant" wrong.

Donger

07-05-2006, 11:39 AM

Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said.

But Bush told investigators that he was unaware that Cheney had directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, to covertly leak the classified information to the media instead of releasing it to the public after undergoing the formal governmental declassification processes.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, Bush did NOT direct Cheney to "disclose highly classified intelligence information" at all. It seems he did OK releasing information after being declassified.

Is that right?

Mr. Laz

07-05-2006, 11:44 AM

So, if I'm reading this correctly, Bush did NOT direct Cheney to "disclose highly classified intelligence information" at all. It seems he did OK releasing information after being declassified.

Is that right?
is it ok for a president to declassify information for the sole purpose of a political attack?

Donger

07-05-2006, 11:47 AM

is it ok for a president to declassify information for the sole purpose of a political attack?

Is it OK legally? I don't know.

Is it OK ethically? Well, I'm not sure. He was responding to an attack by Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Laz

07-05-2006, 11:55 AM

Is it OK legally? I don't know.

Is it OK ethically? Well, I'm not sure. He was responding to an attack by Mr. Wilson.
imo a president ... a leader ... needs to have the discipline to NOT use the power of the office to fight in the mud.

you do not declassify or use your power to influence the law for political gain.

you just don't ... it's beneath the office

i don't even like it when the presidents gets to do a bunch of pardons on the way out of office ..... that's cheap imo too.

what Bush did might not be treason ... but it sure is pathetic.

penchief

07-05-2006, 12:07 PM

That's because I don't see anything wrong with what Bush or his people did (at least based on what we know so far).

If the President or the VP thought that on balance it was good for the country to disclose Ms. Plame's identity then I'm good with that decision even if they tried to do it covertly.

So if they wanted to reveal our military secrets it would be okay if the president authorized it? Even if they did it merely for political reasons?

Donger

07-05-2006, 12:10 PM

imo a president ... a leader ... needs to have the discipline to NOT use the power of the office to fight in the mud.

you do not declassify or use your power to influence the law for political gain.

you just don't ... it's beneath the office

i don't even like it when the presidents gets to do a bunch of pardons on the way out of office ..... that's cheap imo too.

what Bush did might not be treason ... but it sure is pathetic.

Actually, it's been part of the office since its inception. It's politics.

Donger

07-05-2006, 12:11 PM

So if they wanted to reveal our military secrets it would be okay if the president authorized it? Even if they did it merely for political reasons?

Well, they didn't, did they?

Besides, we have the national print media doing that already.

penchief

07-05-2006, 12:15 PM

Is it OK ethically? Well, I'm not sure. He was responding to an attack by Mr. Wilson.

Was Wilson's claim really an attack? Or did he feel an obligation to set the record straight?

Speaking out and stating one's own differing recollection of such an important event can hardly be called an attack. That is, unless you are willing to label as an "attack" anything that anybody says challenging Cheneyburton's agenda or methods.

Cochise

07-05-2006, 12:21 PM

I don't understand where the thread has gone given this: (from jaz's source, even)

Bush also said during his interview with prosecutors that he had never directed anyone to disclose the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. Bush said he had no information that Cheney had disclosed Plame's identity or directed anyone else to do so.

Libby has said that neither the president nor the vice president directed him or other administration officials to disclose Plame's CIA employment to the press.

penchief

07-05-2006, 12:28 PM

Well, they didn't, did they?

Besides, we have the national print media doing that already.

But I understand that Plame worked in nuclear proliferation. Sounds pretty serious to me.

I'm not sure I'd label domestic spying and "total information" as military secrets as much as I would governmental tools designed to consolidate power.

The job of the press is to keep an eye on government. It plays an important role in the checks and balances that are so vital to our republic. Reporting on those things which betray our values and which happen without our knowledge is important, IMO. We are supposed to know what our government is up to. When we have a government that is more secretive than any I've ever witnessed (even before 9/11) it is doubly important. Especially since we can't believe a freakin' word they say.

9/11 is not a free pass for this administration to do whatever it wishes, honest or dishonest. Yet that is the way they are playing it. You may think it's okay to reveal the name of a CIA operative working on nuclear proliferation just so the administration could cover its deceptions, but I don't. I want as much transparency and integrity in my government as I can get.

DanT

07-05-2006, 12:28 PM

Here's Title 18, Section 421 of the United States Code. It's illegal to disclose the identity of undercover intelligence officers.

Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert
agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified
information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies
such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative
measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship
to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, discloses any information that
identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

Donger

07-05-2006, 12:55 PM

Was Wilson's claim really an attack? Or did he feel an obligation to set the record straight?

Speaking out and stating one's own differing recollection of such an important event can hardly be called an attack. That is, unless you are willing to label as an "attack" anything that anybody says challenging Cheneyburton's agenda or methods.

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

That's the same assertion that many have made, and none have proven. Yes, I consider that to be an attack.

patteeu

07-05-2006, 01:01 PM

That is sooooooooooooooo freaking wrong

it's ok to divulge an operative's situation for political expediency?!?!?!

i don't care which president, which party .... that's just complete crap.

If by "political expediency" you mean the kind of expediency that we've grown used to from unprincipled, power-seekers like Bill Clinton then you are operating from a mistaken premise, IMO. This was politics only in the sense that everything is politics. A better way to describe this would be to say that classified informtion was released to advance US interests based on the analysis of those who have been elected to protect those interests.

patteeu

07-05-2006, 01:06 PM

So if they wanted to reveal our military secrets it would be okay if the president authorized it? Even if they did it merely for political reasons?

If they determined that it was better for the country to release it than to keep it secret then, yes it would be OK. Of course, we could all disagree with the wisdom of such a decision (e.g. Clinton's decision to trade missile guidance technology to the Chinese, allegedly, in return for political contributions), but that's always the case.

patteeu

07-05-2006, 01:09 PM

Besides, we have the national print media doing that already.

ROFL

On a more serious note, isn't it interesting that there are so many people outraged by the Plame disclosure who have no outrage left for real leaks of classified information that directly benefit our enemies in the GWoT?

patteeu

07-05-2006, 01:16 PM

Was Wilson's claim really an attack? Or did he feel an obligation to set the record straight?

Speaking out and stating one's own differing recollection of such an important event can hardly be called an attack. That is, unless you are willing to label as an "attack" anything that anybody says challenging Cheneyburton's agenda or methods.

But yet you have no qualms about labeling the Plame disclosure as an attack instead of seeing it as part of the "straight" record.

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

That's the same assertion that many have made, and none have proven. Yes, I consider that to be an attack.

That's not what he said at first. What he said was that he told the administration that the yellow cake claims were bogus and that he was shocked that they were using it for justification of an Iraq invasion. The administration's revealing of his wife was in retaliation for challenging the administration's claims. He revealed that they were told it was bogus and they still used it. That's what really stung. That's why they were so pissed. They were beginning to look like liars.

penchief

07-05-2006, 01:35 PM

But yet you have no qualms about labeling the Plame disclosure as an attack instead of seeing it as part of the "straight" record.

How can ruining her career and tainting those she's worked with be a good thing for her field? Why not just answer the charge instead of attacking people's personal lives?

Wilson has been proven correct when considering the validity of the administration's claims. The fact that they were citing debunked information as fact during the State of the Union Address should concern you more than someone who has the courage to stand up and say that the administration is making bogus claims in order to start a war.

patteeu

07-05-2006, 01:49 PM

How can ruining her career and tainting those she's worked with be a good thing for her field? Why not just answer the charge instead of attacking people's personal lives?

Wilson has been proven correct when considering the validity of the administration's claims. The fact that they were citing debunked information as fact during the State of the Union Address should concern you more than someone who has the courage to stand up and say that the administration is making bogus claims in order to start a war.

Wilson's op ed was filled with misleading statements that some might even call lies. The Butler report called the President's SOTU statement about Niger uranium "well founded." We've been through all this a thousand times.

penchief

07-05-2006, 02:02 PM

Wilson's op ed was filled with misleading statements that some might even call lies. The Butler report called the President's SOTU statement about Niger uranium "well founded." We've been through all this a thousand times.

Hmmm......a thousand times, huh? Funny how the bottom line is still the same:

Wilson = correct

Cheneyburton = intentionally used debunked information to mislead the country to our first "pre-emptive" war.

patteeu

07-05-2006, 02:27 PM

Hmmm......a thousand times, huh? Funny how the bottom line is still the same:

Wilson = correct

Cheneyburton = intentionally used debunked information to mislead the country to our first "pre-emptive" war.

"well founded" - Butler report

Baby Lee

07-05-2006, 02:36 PM

"well founded" - Butler report
Bottom Line = pen's opinion.

FringeNC

07-05-2006, 03:09 PM

I think this article nails it:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007508

I can't believe how weak the administration has been on this. They simply rolled over. They should have been on the offensive, and use the Plame affair to squash the attempted coup at the CIA once and for all.

Bush is partly responsible for all this. There has been a civil war between the Neo-cons at Defense Dept. on one side and the Arabists at the CIA and State Dept. on the other, and Bush has let it fester, rather than definitively coming down on one side or the other.

When the State Dept. or CIA leaks classified information, there have been no criminal investigations, so they continue to do it. The career bureaucrats at the CIA and State think that Bush is illegitimate and that the law does not apply to them, and they can leak because they feel it's in the best interest of the country. You simply cannot run a government like that with portions of it in open revolt against the president's policies. If they don't want to be a part of Bush's foreign policy, they can quit.

The Plame - Wilson affair is just one battle in a much larger war, one that the Bush adminstration has all but surrendered in.